export_results_format

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the operation is read-only and it passes through the same security checks as execute_safe_query. It still omits the behavioral specifics that matter for an export tool, such as size limits, format availability, or how results are returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for what the tool needs to convey, but as a structure/conciseness measure it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters. What is missing is the usage differentiation from execute_safe_query; for a tool whose only apparent distinction is output shape, that gap leaves the definition minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (role, db_uri, sql_query, tenant_id, format_type) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, not even a mention of the format options it implies with 'reshaped for a specific use'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Run a read-only query ... return it reshaped'), and references execute_safe_query to signal the relationship to a sibling. However, 'reshaped for a specific use' is vague and never names the actual export formats (csv/excel/chart_json) that distinguish this tool from plain execute_safe_query.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no exclusions. Given that execute_safe_query appears to be the near-identical sibling (same security checks, same read-only query), the description never tells the agent when to pick this tool instead of that one, which is the single most important routing decision here.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.